Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Mar 1;100(3):730-737. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.042. Epub 2017 Nov 3.

Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Radiation Dose Escalation to the Gross Tumor Volume With Intensity Modulated (Photon) Radiation Therapy or Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy for Stage II to III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 1 Study.

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: mdjeter@mdanderson.org.
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
3
Department of Medical Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
4
Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, Key Laboratory of Translational Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To establish, in the phase 1 portion of a prospective phase 1/2 study, the maximum tolerated dose of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton therapy (IMPT), both with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), for patients with stage II to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

Patients had pathologically proven non-small cell lung cancer, either unresectable stage II to IIIB disease or recurrent disease after surgical resection, and could tolerate concurrent chemoradiation. Radiation doses were selectively escalated to the SIB volume (internal gross tumor volume + 5-mm margin), and the dose to the planning target volume (internal gross tumor volume + 8-mm margin for clinical target volume + 5 mm) was kept at 60 Gy [cobalt gray equivalent (CGE)] over 30 fractions. Patients were randomized between the IMRT and IMPT groups if slots were available on the treatment machines for both groups. Otherwise, patients were allocated to IMRT or IMPT, whichever had an open treatment slot on the machine without randomization.

RESULTS:

Fifteen patients (6 IMRT, 9 IMPT) were enrolled. The highest doses to the SIB were 72 Gy in the IMRT group and 78 Gy(CGE) in the IMPT group. Nine patients (6 IMRT, 3 IMPT) received an SIB dose of 72 Gy(CGE) [biologically effective dose = 89.3 Gy(CGE)], and 6 patients (IMPT) received an SIB dose of 78 Gy(CGE) [biologically effective dose = 98.3 Gy(CGE)]. Dose-limiting (grade ≥3) toxicity (esophagitis) developed in 1 of the 9 patients given 72 Gy(CGE) SIB. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis developed in 2 of the 6 patients treated to 78 Gy(CGE) IMPT SIB: 1 (grade 3) at 3 months after treatment and the other (grade 5, possibly related to treatment) at 2 months after treatment. Only 1 patient developed a marginal tumor recurrence with a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 4.3-47.4 months).

CONCLUSIONS:

We recommend that an SIB dose of 72 Gy(CGE) be used as the highest SIB dose for the planned randomized phase 2 study.

PMID:
29248169
PMCID:
PMC5846341
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.042
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center